Mantle Executive Summary Version 1.0 Final
Introduction
Mantle is a strategy map project under the theme improving our effectiveness and specifically
targets the underlying aim “We have management information that is understood, cascaded and
used to inform decision-making” under E4 Improving core systems and processes.
In summary the project has captured current and management information (MI) future
requirements, compared them to current provision to identify gaps in provision and generated the
essence of this report, options to actually bridge those gaps. These options include organisation and
process as well as technology.
Current and future MI requirements were captured primarily in a bottom-up approach,
supplemented with a small element of specific top-down work on MI requirements falling out of the
Strategy Map measures. The project had strong Faculty representation at all levels including
Steering Group (3 Deans), Working Group (4 Faculty administrators) and Sounding Board (10 Heads
of School or equivalent, 8 Faculty Administrators and 2 Pro-Deans, with all Faculties covered). All
were involved at each stage of the project and over 80% of the options to bridge the gaps identified
in MI provision were also generated via a bottom-up approach.
These options have been drawn together into a group of recommended projects and smaller
initiatives forming a roadmap for 5 years commencing 2008/09.
Vision
A summary vision, generated in work with key stakeholders, of what MI provision should be in a
world class University is “efficient, effective and widely accessible management information to
support decision making in the University.”
In the context of the vision the following aims are key:





Properly governed, organised and co-ordinated; in an organisation of 8000 staff ensuring MI
provision is logically organised with clear responsibilities, especially in the centre; ^
A single method of access, possibly a portal or specific web page, to systems providing MI; with
the acknowledgement that one single monolithic system may be unrealistic but that multiple
systems accessed via the same method would help;
A single repository ^^ holding consistent and integrated data for MI with drill down to different
levels (whole data set) (University of Leeds, Faculty, School, Group, Academic, Student),
acknowledging as above that there may be several different systems that access this repository.
Note not a purely ‘one size fits all’ central solution but equally not a ‘no size fits all’ fragmented
and un-coordinated solution either; ^^^
If possible, flexibility in terms of the functionality available via delivery system(s) that access the
above repository, with provision of regular reports but with in depth data available where
required for interrogation;
Repository should be searchable via plain English queries, holds both MI itself and the
supporting definitions, data responsibilities and descriptions, maintained and edited via a
virtual MI community (both Corporate Services and Faculty) in the University. Includes clear
differentiation between centrally (Corporate Service) and locally (Faculty/School) owned data;






Culture; weave provision into the way the University works (processes), into the way it trains its
staff (e.g. explanation of MI provision at staff inductions) and develop clear capability with
specific individuals who can find their way round the data and systems, understand the nuances
of the data and can provide effective support for senior management, in particular Deans, in
decision making. Ensuring as well that there is an inherent learning process to improve MI
provision on an ongoing basis;
Integration and co-ordination; requests for MI are co-ordinated so that once produced MI is
shared rather than reproduced over and over again in different forms by different areas;
Given time is scarce, but information isn’t, focus on producing MI in smaller quantities but with
a higher degree of quality and relevance. Implicitly, stopping the production of MI in cases
where it is no longer useful, used or relevant in the context of University strategy;
MI that is both widely accessible and accessible in an appropriate manner for different groups of
stakeholders (e.g. a planning specialist will probably need more sophisticated functionality than
a senior officer);
Avoidance of duplicate and parallel systems in the University for producing MI;
MI that is properly linked to and integrated with relevant business processes in the University.
^ one key finding, both from work with stakeholders in the University and echoed in external
research and benchmarking, is that a significant majority of gaps identified are around the
organisation and processes in MI provision, not in the specifics of technologies and systems.
Gartner (www.gartner.com) research states that it is highly likely (80% probability) that through
2010 most organisations will spend 70% of the time, energy and money that they invest in this area
in resolving people, process and organisational issues. This is particularly relevant to gaps
identified from a School and Faculty perspective, where the impact of lack of co-ordination and clear
responsibility at University level provision is most felt. Hence a common thread through Mantle
recommendations is a priority to addressing organisation and process gaps.
^^ a repository in this context is a place, typically a database or databases, to store consistent sets of
data that should be used as the basis for generating MI.
^^^ there is a trade-off in selecting the appropriate option between consistency and flexibility. A
single central repository storing all MI would provide consistency but may limit flexibility. Several
different systems, covering different business functions (finance, HR, marketing etc.), with a central
portal to direct to the appropriate place would offer flexibility but make consistency more difficult.
The choice of solution needs to consider this trade-off and processes or mechanisms should be
sought to compensate for limitations of systems in these dimensions.
Roadmap Summary
The following diagram summarises the roadmap, its deliverables and the benefits.
Note benefits are typically lagged by one year, reflecting the organisational and cultural flavour of
the projects, and thus benefits shown in the diagram are typically from the previous years work.
The ‘sort governance & organisation of MI provision’ cost in year 1 of the roadmap is that of a new
(central) post over 5 years, distributed as £32k in 2008/09, £57k in 2009/10, £59k in 2010/11, £60k in
2011/12 and £63k in 2012/13.
EXAMPLE PRACTICAL
BENEFITS
2008/09
Web page for MI created with links to systems,
MI providers and other useful information such as
provision timetable.
Sort governance &
organisations of MI
provision
£271K
Implement pragmatic
options
Implement options to
improve technology
project delivery
2009/10
Data responsibility,
definitions,
cataloguing project
phase 1
£80K
Cultural change
£55K
Determine MI service
technology
architecture
£52K
Via prototyping those who will use new systems
able to see them early on and refine their
development, rather than taking part in paper
specification exercises.
Clear accountability and responsibility for MI
provision in the University and mechanism for
resolution of issues, i.e.. A point of accountability
to which a School or corporate service can
address requests, issue etc.
Faculties and Schools should no longer be
swamped with uncoordinated and sometimes
inconsistent MI from the centre
2010/11
Data responsibiltiy
definitions
cataloguing project
Phase 2
£85K
Establish MI
provision as regular
service
Technology project?
£156K
1. When student numbers MI for planning
purposes released, the definitions and how it
does/doesn’t relate to Banner data are clear, thus
saving time spent on attempting reconciliations.
2. If requiring a report on Equality & Diversity
student MI can easily search through existing
provision before requesting new report thus
avoiding duplication of effort.
1. Individual IS projects can refer to a clear
technology strategy and have a pre-determined
set of tools to choose from when deciding how to
build systems.
2. From a user perspective fewer systems and
tools to learn how to use.
Review point
Business Intelligence
ready?
Develop MI provision capability, specific people
who can find their way round the data and
systems, understand the nuances of the data and
can provide effective support for senior
management, in particular Deans, in decision
making.
2011/12
Technology project?
£208K
Clear process, route and accountability for a
request for MI to follow incorporating a
reasonable turn around time.
1. Inserting MI on research grant application
success rates by funding body into the business
process of applying for a research grant.
2. Sophisticated modelling of financial effects of
changes in student numbers in future including
sensitivity analysis.
2012/13
Technology project?
£52K
Roadmap notes
The pragmatic options in 08/09 are detailed on pages 9-10 of the report and are the low cost, low
effort, short timeframe options to improve existing MI provision.
Business cases and costs shown for the first year have been calculated in detail. Year two onwards
costs and business cases are indicative only and comprise £220k for the organisational projects and
£468k possible technology (already in the IS development 5 year plan) and require further work. All
other initiatives should be feasible within current resources, though with heavy reliance on the new
post recommended for overall direction and on use of existing staff time.
The detailed roadmap attached as an Excel spreadsheet provides greater detail, including projects
related to Mantle. The most significant ones are Staff data quality, IT delivery, IRIS (Imperial
research information system), Corporate Process Improvement and Research Support Process.
The roadmap recommended is incremental with each step given a relatively generous timeframe
rather than trying to attempt all projects at once to take a single significant step. In short, thinking
big but only executing step by step with a strong emphasis on taking those steps first that have
potential to achieve maximum benefits for minimum investment.
Given the potentially significant outcomes for University IS (and IT) of the many initiatives such as
the IT delivery project and the possible changes to current corporate technologies (e.g. SAP &
Business Objects) project stakeholders felt it was exceptionally difficult to plan for specific corporate
technology projects other than the one indicated in 09/10. It was difficult even to determine this
starting point.
There is a clear need for a carefully thought out communications strategy running as a thread
through the roadmap to explain developments, with sufficient time built in to execute it correctly.
For example projects recommended by Mantle should be specifically tagged as part of the Mantle
roadmap to illustrate the links to the original project and demonstrate its results are being acted on.
The prioritisation within particular projects should be as derived during the Mantle requirements
capture; i.e. by strategy map theme:



Firstly, Inspire our students to develop their full potential & enhance our international
performance and standing (themes came out very clearly as the main priority);
Secondly, Financial sustainability, Achieve an influential world-leading research profile and
Valuing and developing all our staff (all three prioritised roughly the same);
Finally, Improving our effectiveness and Enhance Enterprise & Knowledge Transfer (both came
out as low priority).
Other Key Points
Definition of MI; the most difficult aspect of the Mantle project was trying to establish a generic
definition of MI in the context of the University. This did not prove feasible, and indeed other
organisations have had similar difficulties. In pragmatic terms though Mantle recommendations
focus on strategic and tactical MI for the purposes of decision support, and not on MI needed for the
day to day operation of the University. This effectively takes direct reporting from SAP modules
(Human Resources, Finance, etc) and Banner out of Mantle scope, since these reports simply
produce operational facts (i.e. data) rather than unique information designed to provide insight for
management specific decision making.
Any links between operational data and MI are likely to be picked up in the ‘data responsibility,
definitions and cataloguing project’ in the roadmap.
Data quality was also out of the scope of the Mantle project, as was specific MI for Corporate
Services. This is because quality is being addressed by other projects and thus to include it in
Mantle would lead to duplication. Given current issues and concerns data quality is however a key
risk to the roadmap as a whole, and Mantle recommended projects will need careful integration and
scheduling with other initiatives such as the staff data quality project.
The external perspective
The project made extensive use of Gartner research and informal discussions with peer Universities
to find examples of good practice in MI provision and this proved useful in generating the
recommendations. The recommended roadmap developed is also echoed by other studies1
The draft University IT&S risk register has a high impact, high likelihood risk noted of “Lack of
effective, accurate & timely management information to support performance management and
planning.” The risk register may be audited, subject to Finance approval, and Mantle is already
included as the mitigation measure for this risk.
Forthcoming national initiatives on data quality and efficiency are likely to echo Mantle institutional
recommendations at an HE Sector level.
Detailed Report Contents
The first detailed section of the report, the Mantle detailed roadmap, outlines the roadmap in the
context of specific projects and initiatives, their proposed sponsors, and a brief description. This is
attached as an Excel spreadsheet.
The second detailed section, Mantle roadmap risks, outlines the key risks for the roadmap. This is
also attached as an Excel spreadsheet.
The third detailed section, Mantle individual project detail, fleshes out each of the projects and
initiatives in the roadmap and includes where available, an evaluation of different options, outline
business cases and costs. Note: this section of the report is not designed to be read through in linear
fashion but rather dipped into to find further information on specific parts of the roadmap.
Report Appendices
Appendix 1, Requirements Principles & Characteristics of MI, is a set of generic requirements for MI
provision generated by key stakeholders, prioritised and including an assessment against current
provision (red/amber/green).
Appendix 2 is an example of good practice that adheres to most of the principles and characteristics.
1
WARD, J. and DANIEL, E. (2005) Benefits Management: Delivering Value from Information Systems and Information
Technology Investments
Appendix 3, Key Decisions and MI required to support them, lists the key decisions identified by
stakeholders as vital in managing Schools, Faculties and the broader University, plus the MI needed
to help make those decisions. The MI requirements are available separately in the form of an Access
database.
Appendix 4, Information and Process, is a high level summary showing what is currently produced
at a University level.
Appendix 5, Information Systems Audit results, documents systems and development tools that
could be used in Mantle technology projects. This is a technical appendix intended for IT&IS
specialists.
Appendix 6, Mantle External perspective, contains a summary of useful external research used,
particularly from Gartner, as well as the results of informal benchmarking of provision compared to
other Universities.
Appendix 7, Mantle Survey of Existing MI Provision, is a summary of the results of a survey of
existing MI provision in the University and is provided for information.
Appendix 8, Mantle Glossary provides a guide to any jargon and acronyms used in the report.
Appendix 9, Shadow systems, is a useful précis of a Best Practices report; Strategies for managing
spreadmarts from TDWI (The Data Warehouse Institute).
Appendix 10, Web of Science, details a system identified by Mantle project stakeholders as one with
usability and functionality features which would help to inform new corporate systems to deliver
management information.
Appendix 11, Original Project Executive Summary, is a one page summary of the original Mantle
project plan and is provided for information.
Appendix 12, data sets, is the access database containing the detailed MI requirements captured
during the project.
Next Steps
Following completion of the project in September 2008 this report will progress as follows:




Firstly, the Effectiveness Programme Executive Group (23rd September);
Subsequently Vice Chancellors Executive Group (14th October or 21st October);
Faculty Management Group (6th November);
The Information Technology & Systems Steering Group (12th November) and the Information
Systems Steering Group (18th November).
It will then return to the Mantle Steering Group (November 20th), which has agreed (as has the
project Working Group) to continue for one year or until Mantle recommendations on MI
governance are decided on and implemented. Finally, the Effectiveness Programme Executive will
review timescale and resourcing.
Once the next steps are complete a specific communication strategy will be needed to explain the
final decisions on the roadmap to key stakeholder groups and the wider University.
From October 2008 onwards and in parallel with the next steps the Mantle pragmatic options
recommended in the final report will be progressed under the guidance of the individual Mantle
Steering Group members allocated ownership.